Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Pramod Suryabhan Pawar, filed a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 7 February 2019, which dismissed his application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) seeking quashing of an FIR registered against him on 17 May 2016 at Panvel City Police Station. The FIR alleged offences under Sections 376 (rape), 417 (cheating), 504 (intentional insult), and 506(2) (criminal intimidation) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), and Sections 3(1)(u), (w), and 3(2)(vii) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (SC/ST Act). The complainant, the second respondent, alleged that the appellant had a long-standing relationship with her since 1998, proposed marriage in 2008, and repeatedly promised to marry her while engaging in sexual intercourse over several years. She claimed that the appellant later refused to marry her due to caste differences and sent insulting WhatsApp messages in August and October 2015. The appellant contended that the relationship was entirely consensual, as evidenced by the prolonged duration, cohabitation, and lack of any complaint until after he married another woman in May 2016. The Supreme Court analyzed the FIR allegations and found that the physical relationship spanned over six years, with the complainant visiting the appellant, residing with him, and engaging in sexual intercourse without any complaint until the appellant's marriage. The court noted that the complainant was an educated and mature woman holding a government position, and the allegations did not indicate that the promise to marry was false from the inception. The court distinguished between a false promise made with no intention to marry and a breach of a promise due to subsequent circumstances, holding that the latter does not constitute rape. The court also found that the WhatsApp messages, though allegedly caste-based, were sent after the relationship had soured and did not demonstrate that the physical relationship was on account of the complainant's caste. The court concluded that the FIR did not prima facie disclose the ingredients of the alleged offences, and the continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's order, and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - Quashing of FIR - The High Court's refusal to quash FIR was set aside as the allegations, even if accepted in entirety, did not prima facie constitute offence of rape under Section 376 IPC due to long-standing consensual relationship; the court held that a prolonged physical relationship without complaint negates the inference of rape based on false promise of marriage (Paras 10-14). B) Indian Penal Code - Rape - Section 376 IPC - Consent - Promise to Marry - Where the complainant and appellant had a consensual relationship for over six years, with multiple instances of cohabitation and no complaint until the appellant married another, the promise to marry was not false from the inception; the court held that the failure to keep a promise does not vitiate consent unless the promise was false at the time it was made (Paras 10-14). C) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act - Offences - Sections 3(1)(u), (w), 3(2)(vii) - Insult and Intent - The WhatsApp messages allegedly insulting the complainant on caste grounds were sent after the relationship had soured and did not indicate that the physical relationship was on account of her caste; the court held that the ingredients of the SC/ST Act were not made out as the alleged insult was not with intent to humiliate on caste basis in public view (Paras 15-16).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in refusing to quash the FIR under Section 482 CrPC when the allegations on the face of the FIR indicate a consensual relationship over a prolonged period, and whether the ingredients of offences under Sections 376, 417, 504, 506(2) IPC and Sections 3(1)(u), (w), 3(2)(vii) of the SC/ST Act are prima facie made out.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated 7 February 2019, and quashed the FIR No. 59 of 2016 registered at Panvel City Police Station and all consequential proceedings.
Law Points
- Inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC
- Quashing of FIR when allegations do not constitute offence
- Distinction between rape and consensual sex
- Promise to marry and consent
- Offences under SC/ST Act require specific intent
